it was building on a lot of reforms, it built on the clinton esca work, but that was important. secondly, it made education a national priority. i think before there was some debate about when education is a state and local responsibility, should it also be a national priority? i believe it helped settle the fact that education is a national priority even though it's deem canned local responsibility. on the other hand, there were some major flaws and drawbacks which we're still wrestling with today. the most significant is that it asks for type means, as the secretary of education arne duncan talks about, the -- a lot of prescription around the details in very, very granular ways but was loose on the end, and it basically let states lower the bar and set standards for achievement that really were extremely low and, essentially, in part because of that -- not only -- kids in communities across the country have been lied to, they actually are being told they're proficient on some standardized tests, but they're not really prepared for college readiness and careers. that's a big mi